Editorial

You'd think that given the very real prospect of program cuts that would endanger the health and well-being of Californians, lawmakers would look seriously at modest increases in taxes on alcohol and tobacco to help plug the $19 billion hole in the budget.

You'd be wrong.

Instead of showing some political courage for fiscal sanity, the vast majority of legislators are cowering before deep-pocketed lobbies for the alcohol and tobacco industries, trying to protect their own political hides.

As The Bee's Kevin Yamamura reported Wednesday, the state's excise taxes on beer, wine and liquor haven't changed since 1991. Some Senate Democrats have suggested increasing the taxes to account for inflation, a proposal endorsed by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. It would raise about $210 million a year.

The tax on a 12-ounce beer would go from 1.9 cents to 3 cents; on a 5-ounce glass of wine from 0.8 cents to 1.3 cents; and on a 1.5-ounce shot of liquor from 3.9 cents to 6.2 cents. California's tax on wine is the second-lowest in the country, while its beer tax is in the middle of the pack nationally.

But the bill, as usual, is withering on the vine.

It's the same story on cigarette taxes. California's tobacco excise tax is 87 cents per pack. (With the $1 federal tax, the average pack costs about $5.) It generates about $850 million a year, most for children's, smoking prevention and health programs.

In the 2009-10 session, an Assembly bill has been introduced to add $2.10 per pack, which would raise nearly $1.6 billion a year for education, health and research programs. A Senate bill proposed a $1.50 increase to generate nearly $1.2 billion a year, with most of the money going to the general fund.

Neither measure is going anywhere.

As California has stood on the sidelines, 20 states have increased their cigarette taxes in the past two years, including such tobacco strongholds as Kentucky and North Carolina. As of Thursday, when increases took effect in four states, California's tobacco tax ranks 19th lowest in the country.

Increases in alcohol and tobacco taxes would almost certainly be passed on to consumers and sales would go down. The revenue estimates take that into account, and it would not be a horrible result to discourage unhealthy behavior.

Polls show that voters support reasonable increases in so-called sin taxes.

Supporters are trying to qualify a ballot measure for 2012 that would raise the tobacco tax by $1 a pack, with the estimated $855 million in proceeds going to cancer research and smoking prevention programs. There's also a less reasonable alcohol tax initiative that backers are trying to get on this November's ballot. It would dramatically increase tax rates – from 11 cents to more than $6 on a six-pack of beer, 4 cents to more than $5 on a bottle of wine and 65 cents to more than $17 on a bottle of liquor – and would raise between $7 billion and $9 billion a year for alcohol treatment and related programs.

We generally oppose setting tax policy through the ballot box. But given the political cowardice of legislators, it's understandable why the initiatives arise. (The last two major tobacco tax increases came through Proposition 99 in 1988 and Proposition 10 in 1998.)

It would be far smarter public policy if lawmakers incorporated common-sense alcohol and tobacco tax increases into an overall budget solution. But given their sorry track record, we're not optimistic.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.